As long as immigrants and some citizens don't honor our laws we will never have peace and there will always be anger. It is up to those who are wrong to change.
They already broke our laws and therefore shouldn't be rewarded for it. The employers won't stay within the laws because legalizing the first 12 million will only attract the next bunch and they will hire them instead. The reason this will happen is because you object the SAVE ACT which will force the employers to comply and you oppose a wall that will deter the majority of the ones still waiting to jump the border. We will be back at square one again.
Elton John intended for an anti-American like yourself to use his song to promote illegal immigration? Don't think so. As far as personal info, this is the damn internet. If you choose to share personal info, true or not, it is your choice.
dee, how can you say you are honest with all the denials you make in here when undisputable proof is presented to you? Nothing worse than being dishonest but not even having the fortitude to admit when you are wrong. You have no reason to be angry at me anyway. I am not the one being untruthful, you are.
I don't feel sorry for you, dee. I do feel sorry for your family though and your father who seemed to be a nice person that perhaps tried to teach his daughter honesty but failed.
Why don't you make it your New Year's resolution to always tell the truth and admit when you are wrong and get that monkey off your back? You will be a better person for it.
You have been calling for many of the 12 million undocumented in the US to be granted legal status.
If you were sitting across the table with the antis and negotiating a comromise, would you be prepared to give up birthright citizenship in exchange for legal status for those already here?
If so, roughly how many of the 12 million have to be made legal in exchange for an end to birthright citizenship.
I am trying to get the outline of a workable compromise on the table.
"red faced anger" Can only anti-illegal alien invasion supporters show red faced anger? Or can anti-American people like yourself show "red faced" anger?
Quit flapping your jaws and stand up for your country. Don't be such a hypocrite.
Anon, You are talking about two totally different issues. 1. CIR 2. The 14th Ammendment to the Constitution - Jus Soli.
There are a number of compromises that can be made on CIR, including recommendations to reduce the rate of future Immigration, and immediately imprisoning employers who break the law. Even Guest Worker status vs path to citizenship for those here who meet the criteria (no felonies). The key is to bring them out of the shadows into legal status. That is what we all want. The end to the exploitatoin!
Changing the 14th Ammendment is a completely different issue. You do not have a consensus even on your side for this recommendation. For those European countries that moved to Jus Sanguinis, many did this due to landmass issues. Germany for example is only about the size of Oregon.
While I understand there is a bill drafted by some on your side to change the 14th ammendment, even if by chance it were to pass (which I doubt), the citizenship status for those you term "Anchor Babies" will NEVER, EVER be retroactive. You will have very strong objection if you attempt this.
So let me help you with what will work. The only language that may be accepted is Lex Soli, again, my recommendation is this be a separate bill from CIR. Lex Soli requires that at least one of the child's parents be a national of the state in question at the child's birth, or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child's birth, or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question. Some countries have successfully ammended their constitution to this means of granting nationality, so therefore you do have a precedence. Again, I can not tell you how important it is for your side to stop the use of the term Anchor Babies for our citizen children. I can not tell you how important it is to never, ever consider making any future ammendment changes retroactive. Stop your side from even considering it.
Anon didn't say anything about making the change to the 14 Amendment retroactive, so why bring it up? The bill in congress is not to make it retroactive and it requires only one parent be a citizen of this country and it has already been explained to you over and over in here. I swear you must have aldheimers. Again dee goes on about the term "anchor baby" no matter how many of us in here have explained how that term came to be. Until the 14th is changed, we will continue to call baby's born from illegal alien parents, anchor babies. Too bad you don't like, we don't care! The term fits the circumstances.
So an illegal invasion of our country doesn't merit anger? If it doesn't, then I don't know what does.
You may believe in truth dee, but you sure don't practice it in here.
Anon 1, One more thing. As long as ANTIs like Pat continue their blustering and name calling, it will be very difficult to develop and pass a compromise. As Pat says, he "does not care" and "too bad."
The name calling (e.g. Anchor Baby, Mexifornia, 3rd World Country) has to stop. The MMs have to stop targetting the Day Labor sites and hysterically targetting the Day Laborerers. As Romney said today, all they are seeing is Hispanics. They do not know citizenship. Nor should they ask.
Our own History of Immigration has brought us to this point in history. We as a nation need to take partial responsibility. Therefore targetting these sites or the name calling only creates and spreads anger, in fighting and violence. It has to stop.
As the song goes, "Let it begin with me." Stop the violence, name calling and antagonism and come to the table openly for a compromise. This can work.
Will the pro side stop calling Americans for the rule of law, racists, xenophobes, navists and white supremists? People who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses, dee. It is pure hypocricy to insist we don't use terms you don't like and yet your and yours insult us in this manner.
Oh I see, now you are claiming that the anti's started it, lol. Let's see "anchor baby" = a term that describes how parents illegally in this country have "anchored" themselves unto our country with their child.(no insult here, just the facts). "Mexifornia" = Calif. has the most illegal aliens in the entire nation mostly from Mexico and therefore it is starting to make Calif. look like Mexico.(no insult here, just the facts). "Third World Country" = term to describe areas in the the U.S. that do not reflect the main culture of this country.(no insult here, just the facts). Oh yeah dee those terms sure do equate to the pro's insults of racist, xenophobe, haters,etc. oftheir fellow law abiding Americans. You are grasping at straws here, dee.
The name calling (e.g. Anchor Baby, Mexifornia, 3rd World Country) has to stop. The MMs have to stop targetting the Day Labor sites and hysterically targetting the Day Laborerers. As Romney said today, all they are seeing is Hispanics. They do not know citizenship. Nor should they ask.
According to who? YOU? The MM are not breaking the law for visiting day labor sites or they would be arrested for it. Yes, the name calling of law abiding Americans must stop. Calling your fellow American citizens, racists, etc. for defending our country is deplorable!
Holy Moses let us live in peace Let us strive to find a way to make all hatred cease There's a man over there what's his colour I don't care He's my brother let us live in peace
with all due respect, A compromise doesn't have to include the most hardcore of the antis, they will never agree to anything. It also doesn't have to include La Raza.
but a compromise must be appealing to the vast majority people in the broad middle of this country. Otherwise it won't happen.
So what i am asking is, if a compromise was possible, and the compromise included ending all birthright citizenship except in cases where one of the parents was a citizen, my question is, how much legalization is needed
Here are the outlines of a compromise
(1) Legalization of 10 million of the undocumented now living in the US - no more and no less than ten million
(2) All undocumented other than the 10 million are given 90 days to leave the country
(3) any still in the country after 90 days subject to inprisonment in federal prisons (since the only way to convince people to leave is to threaten prison)
(4) Birthright citizenship ended immediately for future babies born in the US to the undocumented
(5) Babies born in the US in the past to undocumented get to retain their US citizenship
Dee, with all due respect, can such a compromise win the support of the vast majority of the US citizens of latino ancestry?
If it can, then perhaps people in the broad middle will work towards a compromise.
If your message is that latino US citizens will not support such a compromise then truly, those in the middle shouldn't bother to work towards one.
Dee, note that anyone suggesting a compromise such as this expects to be targetted by both la raza and by the white racists for attacks, including violent attacks. No one is going to stick their neck out for a compromise unless they can get support and political cover from the great mass of US citizens of latino ancestry.
Anon, I am sure most any compromise worked out by both side would be better than what we have now. Based on what you said, I would guess you are saying: 1. path to citizenship for 10M. 1st come first serve? 2. After this 90 days for the rest to leave? 3. After 90 days no more citizenship, and Detention Centers via sweeps? 4. Change Constitution Citizenship from Just Soli to Lex Soli by xx date. 5. Those born prior to xx date would remain citizens.
Anon, I was reading an interesting book today. It indicated prior to the Immigration Act of 1996, we did not have the rate of illegal immigrants we have today.
This immigration act enforced restrictive border regulations making it difficult for Guest Workers and Illegal Immigrants to come and go as they had been used to. Prior to 96, we had a high rate of circularity. Mexicans returned home every year. However with the strict restrictionist laws, those that came here stayed here and were afraid to return fearing they may never come back. In connection with this, all those staying moved to non traditional locations since TX, CA, NY and CHI were full. Additionally these folks were not the traditional norther MX, docile, quiet workers. Instead they were from the rural towns of Southern MX, non assimilated, country folks mixed in with a high rate of Central Americans. This is a new group of Latin Immigrants and that is why there is such a difference. They are less educated, less assimilated and less likely to embrace American values. I have only started the first couple of chapters. I am going to read more and write a blog on it next week I hope. This books is written by Jorge Castaneda titled ExMex From migrants to immigrants. It is very interesting.
Border Song
Do you think antis are against people of color? Wrong.
ReplyDeleteActually, they are just against ILLEGAL immigration. Wrong choice of songs.
There is so much anger in this whole discussion. Much on your side, some on the other.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely the correct song.
Let us LIVE in PEACE!
As long as immigrants and some citizens don't honor our laws we will never have peace and there will always be anger. It is up to those who are wrong to change.
ReplyDeleteWith CIR the 12M will not be breaking the laws. Then it will be up to the employers to stay within the laws.
ReplyDeleteLet there be Peace on Earth!
They already broke our laws and therefore shouldn't be rewarded for it. The employers won't stay within the laws because legalizing the first 12 million will only attract the next bunch and they will hire them instead. The reason this will happen is because you object the SAVE ACT which will force the employers to comply and you oppose a wall that will deter the majority of the ones still waiting to jump the border. We will be back at square one again.
ReplyDeletedee said
ReplyDelete"Anger much on your side, some on the other"
The other side--isn't that your side?
Sorry, incorrect song choice.
Elton would agree with me Anon. This song is a GREAT choice!
ReplyDeleteBut tell me a little about you.
Were you a 70s child?
Did you love Peace and Freedom?
Disco?
The Temptations?
Elvis?
Can you tell us?
Just Curious!
Read my book (Resilience, link on left side of Blog page). I let you know all about me. Just want a peak into you Anon.
Elton John intended for an anti-American like yourself to use his song to promote illegal immigration? Don't think so. As far as personal info, this is the damn internet. If you choose to share personal info, true or not, it is your choice.
ReplyDeleteLike you know what Sir Elton intended.
ReplyDeleteHe is a Humanitarian, not a hate monger. He is a believer in People, Hope, Love and Peace!
I am a True Patriot! Living and supporting the Ideals of America, while you support red faced anger. Shame on You!
dee, you mean like the American ideals of the rule of law? Do you support that? No, I don't think so but true patriots do.
ReplyDeleteWant to see some red faced anger by the pro's, dee? Oh, that's right you would just deny it like you denied the videos of the reconquistas.
I remember a song we learned in Choir, Let there be Peace on Earth, and Let it Begin with Me.
ReplyDeleteThat is what I am referencing. Peace should start within each of us.
It does no good to incite anger or violence.
There can be no peace inside for those who are dishonest.
ReplyDeleteAnger and violence? You mean like how the raza beat up a white woman in Maywood, Ca?
I am pure of heart. I am very open and honest. I am not angry at you. I just feel sorry for you.
ReplyDeleteHave some holiday cheer and try to relax dear Pat.
dee, how can you say you are honest with all the denials you make in here when undisputable proof is presented to you? Nothing worse than being dishonest but not even having the fortitude to admit when you are wrong. You have no reason to be angry at me anyway. I am not the one being untruthful, you are.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel sorry for you, dee. I do feel sorry for your family though and your father who seemed to be a nice person that perhaps tried to teach his daughter honesty but failed.
Why don't you make it your New Year's resolution to always tell the truth and admit when you are wrong and get that monkey off your back? You will be a better person for it.
Dee, let me ask you something
ReplyDeleteYou have been calling for many of the 12 million undocumented in the US to be granted legal status.
If you were sitting across the table with the antis and negotiating a comromise, would you be prepared to give up birthright citizenship in exchange for legal status for those already here?
If so, roughly how many of the 12 million have to be made legal in exchange for an end to birthright citizenship.
I am trying to get the outline of a workable compromise on the table.
So be clear in your answer please
"red faced anger" Can only anti-illegal alien invasion supporters show red faced anger? Or can anti-American people like yourself show
ReplyDelete"red faced" anger?
Quit flapping your jaws and stand
up for your country. Don't be such a hypocrite.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about two totally different issues.
1. CIR
2. The 14th Ammendment to the Constitution - Jus Soli.
There are a number of compromises that can be made on CIR, including recommendations to reduce the rate of future Immigration, and immediately imprisoning employers who break the law. Even Guest Worker status vs path to citizenship for those here who meet the criteria (no felonies). The key is to bring them out of the shadows into legal status. That is what we all want. The end to the exploitatoin!
Changing the 14th Ammendment is a completely different issue. You do not have a consensus even on your side for this recommendation. For those European countries that moved to Jus Sanguinis, many did this due to landmass issues. Germany for example is only about the size of Oregon.
While I understand there is a bill drafted by some on your side to change the 14th ammendment, even if by chance it were to pass (which I doubt), the citizenship status for those you term "Anchor Babies" will NEVER, EVER be retroactive. You will have very strong objection if you attempt this.
So let me help you with what will work. The only language that may be accepted is Lex Soli, again, my recommendation is this be a separate bill from CIR. Lex Soli requires that at least one of the child's parents be a national of the state in question at the child's birth, or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child's birth, or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question. Some countries have successfully ammended their constitution to this means of granting nationality, so therefore you do have a precedence. Again, I can not tell you how important it is for your side to stop the use of the term Anchor Babies for our citizen children. I can not tell you how important it is to never, ever consider making any future ammendment changes retroactive. Stop your side from even considering it.
Anon 1 (I am calling you this since obviously you are not the more thoughtful Anon),
ReplyDeleteIt is your side that began all of the ANTI anger.
As I state on the top of my blog, we are here to civilly discuss the Immigration issues because I believe in Truth, Honesty and the American Way!
Anon didn't say anything about making the change to the 14 Amendment retroactive, so why bring it up? The bill in congress is not to make it retroactive and it requires only one parent be a citizen of this country and it has already been explained to you over and over in here. I swear you must have aldheimers. Again dee goes on about the term "anchor baby" no matter how many of us in here have explained how that term came to be. Until the 14th is changed, we will continue to call baby's born from illegal alien parents, anchor babies. Too bad you don't like, we don't care! The term fits the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteSo an illegal invasion of our country doesn't merit anger? If it doesn't, then I don't know what does.
You may believe in truth dee, but you sure don't practice it in here.
Anon 1,
ReplyDeleteOne more thing.
As long as ANTIs like Pat continue their blustering and name calling, it will be very difficult to develop and pass a compromise. As Pat says, he "does not care" and "too bad."
The name calling (e.g. Anchor Baby, Mexifornia, 3rd World Country) has to stop. The MMs have to stop targetting the Day Labor sites and hysterically targetting the Day Laborerers. As Romney said today, all they are seeing is Hispanics. They do not know citizenship. Nor should they ask.
Our own History of Immigration has brought us to this point in history. We as a nation need to take partial responsibility. Therefore targetting these sites or the name calling only creates and spreads anger, in fighting and violence. It has to stop.
As the song goes, "Let it begin with me." Stop the violence, name calling and antagonism and come to the table openly for a compromise. This can work.
Will the pro side stop calling Americans for the rule of law, racists, xenophobes, navists and white supremists? People who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses, dee. It is pure hypocricy to insist we don't use terms you don't like and yet your and yours insult us in this manner.
ReplyDeletePat, Have you NOT caught on by now?
ReplyDeleteWe mirror your rhetoric.
If you were to surprise us and come in Pease, WE would respond in kind!
Oh I see, now you are claiming that the anti's started it, lol. Let's see "anchor baby" = a term that describes how parents illegally in this country have "anchored" themselves unto our country with their child.(no insult here, just the facts). "Mexifornia" = Calif. has the most illegal aliens in the entire nation mostly from Mexico and therefore it is starting to make Calif. look like Mexico.(no insult here, just the facts). "Third World Country" = term to describe areas in the the U.S. that do not reflect the main culture of this country.(no insult here, just the facts). Oh yeah dee those terms sure do equate to the pro's insults of racist, xenophobe, haters,etc. oftheir fellow law abiding Americans. You are grasping at straws here, dee.
ReplyDeleteThe name calling (e.g. Anchor Baby, Mexifornia, 3rd World Country) has to stop. The MMs have to stop targetting the Day Labor sites and hysterically targetting the Day Laborerers. As Romney said today, all they are seeing is Hispanics. They do not know citizenship. Nor should they ask.
ReplyDeleteAccording to who? YOU? The MM are not breaking the law for visiting day labor sites or they would be arrested for it. Yes, the name calling of law abiding Americans must stop. Calling your fellow American citizens, racists, etc. for defending our country is deplorable!
ReplyDeleteHoly Moses let us live in peace
ReplyDeleteLet us strive to find a way to make all hatred cease
There's a man over there what's his colour I don't care
He's my brother let us live in peace
Dee
ReplyDeletewith all due respect,
A compromise doesn't have to include the most hardcore of the antis, they will never agree to anything. It also doesn't have to include La Raza.
but a compromise must be appealing to the vast majority people in the broad middle of this country. Otherwise it won't happen.
So what i am asking is, if a compromise was possible, and the compromise included ending all birthright citizenship except in cases where one of the parents was a citizen, my question is, how much legalization is needed
Here are the outlines of a compromise
(1) Legalization of 10 million of the undocumented now living in the US - no more and no less than ten million
(2) All undocumented other than the 10 million are given 90 days to leave the country
(3) any still in the country after 90 days subject to inprisonment in federal prisons (since the only way to convince people to leave is to threaten prison)
(4) Birthright citizenship ended immediately for future babies born in the US to the undocumented
(5) Babies born in the US in the past to undocumented get to retain their US citizenship
Dee, with all due respect, can such a compromise win the support of the vast majority of the US citizens of latino ancestry?
If it can, then perhaps people in the broad middle will work towards a compromise.
If your message is that latino US citizens will not support such a compromise then truly, those in the middle shouldn't bother to work towards one.
Dee, note that anyone suggesting a compromise such as this expects to be targetted by both la raza and by the white racists for attacks, including violent attacks. No one is going to stick their neck out for a compromise unless they can get support and political cover from the great mass of US citizens of latino ancestry.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI am sure most any compromise worked out by both side would be better than what we have now. Based on what you said, I would guess you are saying:
1. path to citizenship for 10M. 1st come first serve?
2. After this 90 days for the rest to leave?
3. After 90 days no more citizenship, and Detention Centers via sweeps?
4. Change Constitution Citizenship from Just Soli to Lex Soli by xx date.
5. Those born prior to xx date would remain citizens.
Yes there would be some disagreement by many.
It would be better than current.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI was reading an interesting book today. It indicated prior to the Immigration Act of 1996, we did not have the rate of illegal immigrants we have today.
This immigration act enforced restrictive border regulations making it difficult for Guest Workers and Illegal Immigrants to come and go as they had been used to. Prior to 96, we had a high rate of circularity. Mexicans returned home every year. However with the strict restrictionist laws, those that came here stayed here and were afraid to return fearing they may never come back. In connection with this, all those staying moved to non traditional locations since TX, CA, NY and CHI were full. Additionally these folks were not the traditional norther MX, docile, quiet workers. Instead they were from the rural towns of Southern MX, non assimilated, country folks mixed in with a high rate of Central Americans. This is a new group of Latin Immigrants and that is why there is such a difference. They are less educated, less assimilated and less likely to embrace American values. I have only started the first couple of chapters. I am going to read more and write a blog on it next week I hope. This books is written by Jorge Castaneda titled ExMex From migrants to immigrants. It is very interesting.